1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and went through the relevant record produced before us. It emerges that when the truck was stopped and `Bhatta' was demanded by PC Nadeem, the appellant restrained the other PC from doing so and allowed complainant to go. The complainant, Muhammad Suleman. Driver, in the FIR No. 116/91, stated that the tall police constable (appellant) asked the fat police constable (Nadeem) to let the truck go. The DSP Legal, Karachi also had not found him guilty of the case. The section 307, P.P.C. was also altered to section 308, P.P.C. read with section 337‑H, P.P.C. of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. After scrutiny by the D.S.P. Legal, Karachi Range, the case was resubmitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. before the trial Court and in it the name of the appellant was deleted because he was not found guilty by the DSP Legal. The Aziz Bhatti Police Station, therefore, submitted its report under section 169/173. Cr.P.C. to the Court and the ACM IV (East), Karachi, discharged the appellant from the charges. 5: The grounds of action in the show‑cause notice No. SSP‑(East)DP/91 75884, dated 2‑9‑1991, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District East, are as under: ‑ Complainant Truck Driver Muhammad Suleman son of Abdullah reported at Police Station Aziz Bhatti on 3‑8‑1991 that while he was coming to Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal with a load of Iron Bars, he was stopped by Constables No. 2906 Abdul Nadeem and 1802 Amir Muhammad of Aziz Bhatti Police Station. They demanded an illegal gratification. On refusal to cough out this amount Constable Abdul Nadeem got infuriated and opened fire on the complainant with the intention to kill him, resulting in injuries on the latter's person. Hence a case was registered under FIR No. 116/91 under section 307/34, P.P.C. Police Station Aziz Bhatti Karachi. You displayed a high degree of greed and corruption. This attitude tantamounts to gross‑misconduct on your part. The above statement of allegations is based on the following evidence: (1) Morning report of Police Station Aziz Bhatti dated 3‑8‑1991. (2) FIR No. 11/91 under section 307/34, P.P.C. of P.S. Aziz Bhatti, Karachi. In reply to the show‑cause notice, the appellant pleaded not guilty.

6. The respondent No. 1 considered the reply of the appellant and found that his reply is anything but satisfactory. According to him, it is a clear case of high‑handedness on his part that he, in complicity with his fellow Constable Abdul Nadeem, stopped truck driver for ulterior motives, demanded illegal gratification from him and on his refusal to grease his palm, the truck driver was fired upon from the Government weapon and, thus, injured him on his forehead. He, therefore, opined that the charge is established against the appellant calling for an exemplary punishment and then he passed orders of his dismissal from service with immediate effect.

7. The conclusion drawn by the respondent No. 1 is illegal because: (i) The appellant pleaded not guilty in his reply to the allegations levelled therein. (ii) In the F.I.R., the complainant, Muhammad Suleman, clearly stated that the appellant asked his companion police constable to let the truck go. (iii) The DSP Legal, Karachi Range, candidly expressed that the case was only against one constable namely Abdul Nadeem, and the appellant had been wrongly challaned. He continued that no overt act had been assigned to the appellant, rather he was asking the other constable to let the truck go. He, therefore, recommended to drop the name of the appellant. (iv) The ACM IV East, Karachi, accepted the request of the Police that the name of the accused be deleted from the charge‑sheet. (v) The respondent No. 1 did not issue the final show‑cause notice which he was required to be issued before imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service.

8. We have given our full mind to this case and are of firm opinion that the orders of dismissal from service passed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant admittedly suffer from legal infirmities. We, therefore, overturn the orders of dismissal from service passed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant and order his reinstatement into service from the date of dismissal. The case is disposed of with no orders as to costs.

9. Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal this 20th day of August, 1992. A.A./386/Sr.S Appeal accepted.